how long are the democratic women going to let these people come out and make it sound like they are stupid? it is only democrats that complain about getting discriminated against. republican women are not doing it, it is always democrats. it sounds caller: they had no right to do that. the thing will get struck down. i really want to see them -- democrats really make women -- democrat women look stupid. thank you. host: 1 last story. the stock market echoed tenements square. there was anrs -- active response.

the stock market echoed the date of the tiananmen square crackdown on june 4, 1989. 20 years later, it got so intense over the memory of tiananmen square that it set off the sensors posts were blocked and deleted. that is all. thank you for joining us. coming up next, we go live to the senate on homeland security and governmental affairs subcommittee on contracting and oversight. this is a hearing looking at progress made by government contractors in the hiring of military veterans. looking at veteran employment. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

[no audio]

[no audio]

>> this hearing of the subcommittee on oversight on homeland security and government affairs will come to order. i am happy today to be discussing a subject that i think every american should be concerned about. that is the employment of our veterans. the hearing today -- we will talk about an alarming trend in the employment of the best that america has. service in the active-duty military, or national guard, has historically been an advantage in seeking employment. recruiters for the military promise that the service could lead to careers. yet, after more than a decade of war, we are seeing something different. the men and women who have served so honorably in a iraq and afghanistan are facing unprecedented challenges in finding employment. last week, the department of

labor released its latest figures, which showed that the unemployment rate -- the unemployment rate in the united states is currently 8.2%. those same figures show that of veterans who served on active duty since september of 2001 have an unemployment rate of 12.7%. the unemployment rate for veterans who have served since september 2001 has been increasing. in may 2011, the unemployment rate for these veterans was 12.1%. in may 2010, it was 10.6%. these numbers are stark reminders that we are not doing enough to help our veterans. we must take urgent steps to improve our national average to make sure that veterans have the tools they need to find careers after they leave the military. part of the problem is there are significant barriers in seeking

employment. they are finding that all the training and experience cannot simply be translated into similar civilian jobs. they may be finding employees to feel unsure about hiring veterans and members of the national guard because they do not understand what service requires. breaking down these barriers is critical and requires innovative, comprehensive responses. part of the problem is that the government is not doing what it should. simply telling the veteran to go down to his or local employment office or search the job boards, as we have heard happens, is not enough. many different agencies, including the defense department, the veterans administration, and department of labor, have programs to work with their unemployment issues. some are more successful than others. contractors are well situated to the major employers of veterans. many are. contractors are required by law to take affirmative action to hire veterans.

since 2002, president bush signed into law a provision that requires companies with government contracts over $100,000 -- to report their -- those with 50 or more employees are required to develop a plan to hire veterans. the question is, how well are the contractors doing at this? we have no idea. last year, i asked the department of labor for information collected from government contractors for 10 years. the department could only provide data from 2009 and 2010. it only just became electronically available. the subcommittee staff prepared a fax -- a fact sheet summarizing this information.

i ask for unanimous consent that this be included in the hearing record. this sheet shows that the information being maintained by the department of labour is spotty and frequently inaccurate. we saw numbers that are obviously wrong. we saw a company whose number of veterans fire is 400% -- whose veterans hired is 400% larger than the total number of workers. two companies represented today do not even appear in the data. both had in fact submitted the data and were able to produce it on request. it seems that the reason for this discrepancy is with the department of labour. there are two offices within the department of labour responsible for collecting the data and overseeing compliance. that is, the office of the assistant secretary for veterans employment and secretary, the

department of labor, and the of office of federal contract compliance programs. the office of federal contract compliance. yet, in conversations with the department of labor, the subcommittee learned that the agency collects this information but never use it for any purpose. the office of federal contract compliance has the authority to audit contract compliance but, in fact, conducts very few fault assurance reviews. this is not make any sense to me. -- very few quality assurance reviews. this is -- this does not make any sense to me. i call this hearing to look at two groups taking active steps to promote contractor employment

of veterans. we would hear about the challenges facing veterans. we'll hear from two a large, well-known businesses about their efforts to recruit and hire veterans. i look forward to constructive discussion today. i want to make one point clear from the outside. -- outset. the status quo is not acceptable. the notion that these highly trained and frankly -- and veterans who we know make great employees -- and the fact that we cannot get them employed, that their unemployment level is higher than the nation's unemployment level is a shame. it is something we should be ashamed of. we cannot continue to betray the trust of our nation's veterans by not doing everything in our power to make sure they have access to employment. we cannot waste businesses time with thingss' time

that have no benefit to employment. we need to make sure we are not taking a one-size-fits-all approach. this is a tall order. but when it comes to our veterans, we have an obligation to do everything we can. i hope this hearing will be a first step. i hope the department labor -- department of labor is listening. i think the witnesses for being here and look forward to their testimony. i wanted to make -- i may indulge the witnesses to interrupt you for purposes of another senator's opening remarks. i will introduce our witnesses and we will begin your testimony today. ted is the president and ceo of vetjobs.

it has become one of the internet -- a leading internet job boards for veterans. he served in the navy and navy reserve for 30 years. he is also chairman of the atlanta regional military affairs office. he also sits on the board of governors for the international association of employment web sites. he chairs the committee for folks who are supposed to be doing compliance at department of labour. spencer is the ceo of what the mission continues, which is based in missouri. founded in 2007, the mission continues is a non-profit organization that empowers post 9/11 veterans. mr. kimpton is a graduate of westmont -- west point.

he held the position of vice president of recruiting for teach for america. ramsey suleiman is a legislative associate for iraq and afghanistan veterans for america. iava has helped countless returning veterans with programs focusing on physical and mental health, education, and careers. mr. sulayman serve in operation iraqi freedom as a platoon commander. pamela harding is a senior diversity manager at booz allen hamilton. she has worked in various recruiting and consulting

positions. she specializes in diversity recruiting strategies. sally sullivan is an executive vice president -- she leads in the business development functions. prior to that, she served as vice president for secured infrastructure at northrop grumman. it is the custom of this subcommittee to swear in all witnesses that appeared before us. if you do not mind, i would like to ask you to stand. do you swear that the testimony that you will give before this subcommittee will be the whole -- the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? thank you, and let the record reflect that all witnesses have answered in the affirmative. will be using its timing system today. do not worry that we will -- be

hitting a buzzer or agong. if he would begin, we would at -- we appreciate you being here. >> thank you, madam chairman. i want to thank the staff here. vetjobs has a unique vantage point. we have dealt with the veterans and their family members on a daily basis who are pursuing employment with government contractors. a big part of our membership base our government contractors. from our perspective, we find that for the most part contractors are enthusiastic employers of veterans. when looking at veteran implement, it helps to understand it from an employer's perspective there are two groups that comprise veteran

employment. the first to be those who are transitioning off active duty with no further military obligation. this group is the most desirable of the veterans groups from which employers refer to hire -- prefer to hire. they come with many skills and andrius wanted by employees -- employers. -- skills and at tribut -- attributes. the third bancorp is the national guard. -- the third group is the national guard. going to the numbers you cited, madam chairman, the biggest part of the veteran unemployment problem is in the national guard. form the most part -- for the

most part, they are getting jobs. of the two groups, the national guard is the least preferred veterans. -- group of veterans. they do not have a ready source of income unless the confined a job. hi operation -- a high operational tempo, they have problems maintaining continuous service with this employer. the national guard personnel are used for local emergencies, such as flooding and hurricanes, security, what ever. for example, at the national guard in georgia has had 6 01- year or more collops in the last 10 years. that makes it really hard to

keep the job. many studies have found that, due to the constant call ops, employers ought shy away from hiring members of the national guard and reserve. studies show upwards of 70% of employers will not now hire as a new employee an active member of the national guard. fortunately, contractors are supportive of the national guard. this is important, since the national guard reserve now represents more than 50% of our total fighting force. some department of labor officials like to tout how many unemployed people there are for each job in the country. you and other officials to make the statements are displaying a gross misunderstanding of how our economy works and why

employers hire candidates. employes to not hire someone just because they are standing and breathing or are unemployed. they hire candidates to fill a need within the company. the bottom line is that and they look for qualified candidates to hire. -- you have negative numbers. right now, they are paying $45 an hour for welders in the midwest and they cannot find enough welders. it will go up to $50 by the end of the summer. government contractors are major employers. many of them have discussed with me the problem of finding qualified candidates to hire. they like to hire veterans because, generally, they have excellent skill sets and the attributes they want. in my written testimony, i used the example of a stellar

government contractor. there be -- to be commended for their practice hiring of veterans. i've also written about the obstacles that hinder government contractors from hiring veterans. those include the vets 100 report, which in my opinion is a waste of time. the federal compliance program kind of disincentive rises programs -- companies -- disincentivizes companies wanting to hire veterans. i'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. >> senator, thank you for joining us. mr. kimson. >> thank you for inviting me to bridge is a bit in these

hearings. it has been my experience as a veteran and in the mission continues, it is my opinion this committee is doing work that is crucial to this generation of veterans. i'm testifying as a west point graduate and former helicopter pilot. i nasser as the chief operating officer of -- i now serve as the chief operating officer of an issue -- the mission continues. based on these experiences with veteran recruitment and retention, i believe there are several key lessons that federal contractors and corporate leaders can apply to successfully tap into the great skills up-to-date's veterans. applying these lessons will strengthen their organizations well building successful transitions for veterans. at the mission continues, we create successful transitions by

engaging veterans in six months community service fellowships. today, a cavalry scout mentors hundreds of children at the boys and girls club. a marine corps sergeant taught his community prepare for disasters to the american red cross. an army communications specialist teaches english as a second language to immigrant children and their parents. we introduce these fellows to information. we welcome the monterey distant team. we ask him to don a -- we welcome them on to a distant team. at the end of the fellowships, we will challenge them to mark their lifetime commitment to service by executing a project in their community. afterwards, they realize their post-fellowships goal of full time employment, continued education, or an ongoing role of service. our experiences with these fellows and the veterans to

apply for fellowships has shown us that when you connect veterans to a meaningful mission, asked to join a distant team, and challenged him with a set of goals that leads to a definable impact, they excel, just as they excelled in their military service. a primary factor in our selection and placement of fellows is the passion they have for service. the cavalry scout serving at the boys and girls club is fulfilled by mentor and youth. the marine is passionate about emergency response. reconnecting to a meaningful mission has been critical to their success. our fellows are further enriched by a renewed connection to 18. as you know, all enlistees take an oath to support and defend the constitution. they then joined their military units, each of which possesses a strong identity and position.

we recently gathered 100 veterans and awarded them fellowships. we asked them to take a similar oath and join a new team. in front of thousands of fans at a baseball game, standing at attention alongside their new comrades, these fellows proudly resected an oath of service. they walked off the field motivated and eager to serve. well they serve, we require that they set achieve the goals -- set and achieve goals. they identify a post-fellowship goal that will impact their own lives for years. we hold them accountable to those goals and partner in their success. one man drop in war-torn sierra leone. as a child, he marvelled at the marines guarding the embassy. he decided he wanted to be a

marine. years later, after immigrating to america, he enlisted in the united states marine corps. he honored the serve for six years, including deployments to iraq. -- he honorably served for six years, including deployments to iraq. but unemployed and unable to translate his military skills to job fairs in southern california, he found us. driven by his personal responsibility to assist the less fortunate, he earned a fellowship with habitat for humanity. he has reconnected to a mission that is important to him. he is working on distant teams. his team at the mission continues, habitat for humanity, and the teams have now volunteered. he is transferring military skills to civilian skills. his story can be the story of this generation of veterans. the story of service and war --

service in war and continued service at home. we're grateful for the continued support of the subcommittee. we would welcome any questions you may have. thank you. >> madam chairman, distinguished members of the subcommittee, on behalf of more than 200,000 members and supporters of iraq and afghanistan veterans of america, we thank you for letting us share our views on this issue. i spent 14 years on the marine corps. as a staff member, i try to make their lives better. the views represent my organization and not the marine corps. unemployment is arguably the most pressing issue facing veterans today. while recent statistics may indicate that the employment

outlook may be getting better for veterans, the situation is still worse than it ought to be. the unemployment rate for veterans 18 to 24 year olds -- years old is nearly double the rate for civilians. many people have wondered whether federal contract and loss and goals are being met. if not, what is the best manner to do so? there are three areas to consider -- dasa, outreach, and implemented solutions. -- data, outreach, and implement solutions. one program is a convenient that touched. -- touch point that allows for communication for the white -- to the widest possible audience. the administration is developing an entrepreneurship track, and we believe this component will be important for success. we also believe in allowing veterans and their spouses to

retake the program after separating. this allows a veteran or spouse who has completed one track to retake in other track based on new circumstances. this is a small investment on the front and which we believe will pay big dividends on the back end. on the question of data, we must ask, what we know, and what do we wish to know? much of this is dispersed among different agencies. results are not easily accessible. information is more akin to a head count that mrs. crucial information. -- that misses crucial information. there is no guarantee that the amount of hiring by a contractor or subcontractor is reliable. a contractor may have 100

veterans at the beginning of the year and two at the end. the value of the forms is limited. some good examples would be the north american industry classification system codes. they allow the tracking of the number of contracts and from where a veteran hales. these pieces of information would help see in what industries of veterans are most heavily concentrated. much of that information resides with sba. the certification process for a a veteran-owned small business should be easy and consistent. we support efforts to curb fraud and abuse of a veteran-ounce status, but we recognize that the certification process should not discourage small businesses with limited resources. the process currently used by

the veterans administration is too cumbersome. extending this to all agencies to be unnecessarily burdensome. it is worth noting that the va center for veterans enterprises was down for approximately two weeks. it was up last thursday, but it is now back down again for maintenance. there is no information posted as to when you veterans may be able to register their businesses. the small business administration has experienced little fraud. we believe that this system will help ease the burden on veteran- owned small businesses while helping to guarantee that the consideration earned through service to this country is not a breeze. as far as solutions go, we pursued many different leads on increasing the number of veteran contractors.

the idea of a searchable, centralized database of veteran contractors could that could be used already exists as the central contractor registry. the use of these sources to find veteran contractors appears to be less than optimal because, we are told, many people choose "the past -- path of least resistance." with that data, -- data that is substantial and easy to understand, implementing solutions is a little bit like shooting first and a minute later. -- a ng later -- aiming later.

sba are the experts on small business and should be the prime actor. i strongly welcome the efforts of congress, the executive branch, and private industry to increase the number of contractors. as part of our commitment,iva will be communicating to the population through extensive social media outreach. will be partnering with agencies and private organizations to increase employment in our program. we have a partnership with the u.s. chamber of commerce. we believe the unemployment is the number one issue facing veterans of iraq and afghanistan. it will only become more important as the war in afghanistan and. we look forward to help anyway we can. i'm prepared to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. ms. hardy?

>> thank you for inviting me to testify here today. i testify as a senior manager in the diversity inclusion team at booz allen hamilton, where i am responsible for all aspects of organizational efforts to build and maintain a diverse and inclusive culture for all employees at the firm. that includes making booz allen an employer of choice for veterans. we are based in virginia and have more than 80 offices throughout the united states. our work has helped u.s. government agencies, defense components, and other clients better execute the most challenging government visions -- mission as around the world. forbes magazine recently ranked us as the top employer for veterans, citing the approximately 1/3 of our employees to have self- identified as having a military

background. we have been recognized by the national guard, the reserve, and the disabled veterans organization for outstanding practices. we're honored to have been named in the top-10 of the gi jobs list of military friendly employers. our commitment to veterans and wounded warriors is part of our corporate culture. it is coordinated by our senior leadership and extends throughout the firm. we have multiple layers of our business -- much like we indicate our various capabilities for our clients. we hire veterans because of this commitment, and because veterans bring unique knowledge and experience to their work. you can know the challenges that face our u.s. military and other government clients better than those who have served our

country in uniform. for these reasons,boon allen supports efforts to hire former military members. we believe the current regulatory contract -- construct strikes the right balance, allowing employers to explore and develop programs that work best for their organization. we approach military hiring through a variety of creative recruitment programs, but we also leverage the wide range of expertise. -- the wide range of expertise we provide to clients, such as veteran health services, to help support new hires. we support a veteran-owned businesses to our contract organization. we use members of our own work force to mentor and support other veteran employees through employee resource groups,

mentoring circles, education, and leadership programs. we focus on programs to support military families and spouses. importantly, veterans and it would warriors are a major focus and beneficiary of the firm's philanthropic efforts. in our prepared statement, we detailed several hiring and retention programs that have made us so successful. in hiring, we sought out a strategic partnership with nonprofit organizations in the military committee -- community. we also worked on a program to put it recently separated jr. office is in direct contract with our recruiting team. -- recently separated junior officers in a direct contract with our recruiters. we maintain initiative with our

surrounding community. we offer resources to give former members of the military a forum to interact with one another and navigate their transition into the civilian workplace. we have a proactive disability accommodations program, generous military leave, and return policy for reservists. we conduct targeted training and develop programs to help veterans import skills from the military to skills they can use at market atbooz allen. we also worked to improve in community organizations. well we believe we are already affected in employing veterans, we recognize there is work we all need to do.

collaboration among organizations and the government is of paramount importance. we support the subcommittee's efforts to enhance this type of collaboration. madam chairman, thank you again. i welcome any questions you may have. >> thank you very much. ms. sullivan. >> madam chairman and distinguished members of the committee, i am honored to appear before you this morning to share our experiences in hiring and retaining veterans. we are global employer to almost 10,000 people. 40% of our employees today identified as serving or previously serving in the military. this is evidence of a culture that attracts member ought -- members of the military. mantek offers members of the

military the opportunity to gain additional training, health care coverage, and the opportunity to continue to serve the country and support an important mission as a contractor. the majority of the work supports our military and intelligence community. most positions directly support mission requirements. they typically require skills into military service and the possession of active security clearances. many of our recruiting activities are focused on engaging those and the process of accepting the military -- in the process of exiting the military. mantek has more than one dozen military partnerships such as the wounded warrior project, hiring our heroes, and va for vets. we also have relationships with

colleges and universities that support the gi bill. we have purges abated in more than 125 hiring against -- we have participated in more than 125 hiring eve dance in 72 cities nationwide. we work closely with the transition assistance program sponsored by the u.s. military. t.a.p, we offer advice, including advice on how the civilian job in varmint works. mantek offers educational skills and career development training, as well as membership opportunities. our programs are offered through mantek university, a first-class

corporate university designed to support the educational needs of our employees. we have alliances with 13 accredited universities offering certificates, bachelor's and master's degrees both online and in traditional settings. in 2011, a large percentage of our veteran employees took advantage of training opportunities through this university. more than 40,000 courses were successfully completed, roughly 10 courses per employee. many of our contracts require foreign deployment, so we offer two specific programs to assist family members of the plight individuals. one program provides family members free access to resources and counseling 24 hours a day. the program offers expert guidance on addiction,

parenting, and coping with stress. a second program is available to employees 24 hours a day by human resource professionals who have knowledge and experience to assist deployed employees and their families. as a result of retention efforts such as these, many of our new recruits come as referrals from existing employees. that contributes to us being named one of the top six ringtary -- a veteran hi employers. that may comment on mantek's experience with filing and

reporting information from the department of labour. this is an automated process, with database programs that capture information at the initial stage of the hiring process. each employee is asked to self- identify if they are a veteran. this information is aggregated and reviewed by a human- resources specialist and senior management routinely throughout the year. lastly, you ask for our suggestions to improve the federal government's efforts to hire veterans. human resources specialist, recruiter, or line manager, all the employees we interviewed spoke consistently. they said that the government already takes important average steps to this segment of the

population. companies like mantek have served veteran average. we each have family members or loved ones who have served today. -- who have served or are serving today. our recommendation is to stay the course. madam chairman, that concludes my oral statement. >> thank you all very much. i tried to visit small businesses in my state from time to time. i had a visit with a plumbing supply house in st. louis. this is not a large employer -- less than 50 employees. most people who work there have worked many years. they want to be careful when they hire someone. they assume they will be within four years. i did not go there to talk about hiring veterans, but they brought it up with me. the man who owns the company said it was incredibly difficult

for them to find veterans. they mentioned a couple of things. i would love your take on this. first, he said that the website -- as it looked at the various listings, there were taken aback at how many people had put information on the other -- on the website who were not veterans. people were able to access web sites and put their employment -- they were anxious to get employed -- when they did the due diligence, they found out that people were signing up who were not veterans at all. they saw that -- they found that overwhelming. they ended up working at this for a while. this been a lot of time and energy. they finally found two applicants who they are in the process of interviewing. the other thing they mentioned to me is matching.

he said that at a veteran at job fairs, there would be employers like banks and enterprises rental cars, anheuser-busch, and they needed people for their webs -- warehouse. they were not able to hire somebody disabled -- who was disabled because they needed someone to help them load plumbing supplies in and out of their warehouse. he said it was clear to him how inefficient this was -- you had all these employers who wanted a much different employee than he was looking for. he said that that once again took hours of their time and effort to try to match up the right veteran with the right job opportunity. if you could, if you could address these two issues that this employer in st. louis was struggling with. >> your comment about not being

vets does not surprise me. there are a number of sites to do not delegate who is putting up the resonant -- do not validate who is putting up the resin bresume. we validate each person who is putting up their president. some others will let anybody put up their resume. over 200,000 visitors a month, but we only have 140,000 active resumes. it has been hammered into us that our friends are using free web sites to track down veterans.

but i hear that from a lot of employers because until they need to make a higher, they are not aware of who is in the space. if i do not need any -- i do not know any heart doctors, but if i suddenly need what i will go and look. the more advanced websites, hours be in one of them -- hours been one of them -- ours being one of them, can identify a veteran who matches best with the employer day. we have customer service representatives. when a customer puts up a job,

we will go into the database identifying people and referring them. we have a pretty good success rate. a lot of the complaints that he or she was voicing comes from not understanding how the system works. it is not a system used day in and day out. >> what would you suggest, if anything -- sometimes, all best intentions heavily endings in government. i am beginning to believe that this deporting requirements to the department of labour is an example. we had best intentions, we were going to keep track of contractors hiring veterans, but nobody is doing the due diligence to make that effort meaningful in any way. what could we do that would help

this employer like the plumbing supplier in st. louis find ways that are more efficient for them? these are great folks -- they wanted to do this because they love their country and want to hire veterans. i cannot believe that a lot of businesses would spend the time and effort that they spend. i am surprised at your website would not pop up as one of the first if you went on to search "hiring veterans." >> we pop up in the top three or four. >> is it clear that all the veterans are certified as veterans? >> yes. we found a few people who were not veterans -- we took them out. a few suggestions though -- one

would be to have coordination with the veteran employment centers. >> i can do the acronym dance with you. >> having more of them familiar with what goes on. madam, you have got a lot of people in the dol who are classic bureaucrats. you have -- they have a great job except for all these people who would come in and what help. -- all these people who come in and want help. there is one veteran who tried for three days to get help with a job. each day they said, you are in our system now.

he did not give a damn about being in the system. he wanted a job. we found out where he was living. we did a search of his apartment and found a supermarket, a target, and a walmart within walking distance. we call the managers of those three stores -- all three said it sent him over. two of them gave him a job offer. he took one of them. we did all that in 20 minutes. why can not you have this $50,000 a year bureaucrat sitting on their but in an air- conditioned office to the same thing -- do the same thing? it is because there is no incentive. i know that is not politically correct, but that is the reality. we deal with that day in and day

out. having them better educated as to what the real resources are in their area -- because all employment is on a local level -- >> right. >> we put out a listing of what we consider to be all the legitimate jobs on the -- job sites on the internet. there are so many rip off sites. >> i think we need to figure out it went -- figure out a way to put as much of this in the state and local offices where, frankly, they will be the ones you have the best year to the ground -- best ears to the ground. let me ask you about booz allen and mantek.

he said the reporting requirements were not burdensome and your companies. i am not sure there are much value, but you said they were not burdensome. let me ask you about the national guard problem. the majority of people you are hiring are leaving national service as opposed to national guard -- [inaudible] i know we capture those -- i was thinking about congressional mandated programs, and one program that we love that has a high impact and does make a difference and has to do with those separating from the military is the t.a.p. program. this is where you can really work with them and help them think through how to write a

resume. i will look to our numbers. i may not be able to comment here, but i do not think the majority of them are national guard or reserve. they're typically once separating from the military. >> if you could get those numbers for us that would be helpful. how about you, ms. hardy? i assume things are the true -- are true. >> correct. about 11% of our hires' self- identified as having recently separated. this represents the highest overall diversity constituency in the group. -- the firm. these individuals are coming directly from active duty to booz allen as a first thought. i do not have the numbers for the reservists, but we to capture them. >> i think it would be important

to get those numbers. let me ask you, mr. sulayman. i think the national guard problem is a crisis. i think this is something we are sweeping under the rug. when i was a prosecutor in kansas city, i remember thinking that the national guard is a very good thing. that was before it became an operational reserve. i think the testimony that was given here today demonstrates the problem. these companies are not hiring people just because they want to hire a veteran. they are hiring because they need to employ people for ongoing business operations. you cannot blame them for hiring some -- not hiring someone because they are worried that it begone four or five times over a

10-year period. i know we are drawn down in afghanistan and, obviously, we have drawn down in iraq. but i think that we have currently injured the ability of the national guard to get employed in our country by the way we have made these changes. i do not think the worst well thought out. -- i do not think they were well thought out. i think that is one of the reasons we have had problems with suicides and other issues we are seeing in our military. what would you recommend that we could do, short of convincing our military leadership that they need to go back to the old way in terms of utilizing the guard and the reserve -- what could we do that could help this problem? >> you really hit on the crux of

the matter. it is that the national guard and reserves have been used in an unprecedented fashion in the conflicts in iran and afghanistan. they have been used as an operational -- conflicts in iraq and afghanistan. they have been used as an operational reserve. they envision active guard and reserve units activating at least once every five years. you can not expect to be deployed at least once every five years. more often if you are switching units and happen to catch the unit at the right or wrong time in the cycle. that will be continued as an issue, particularly with smaller employers who can stand to absorb that lost less well. -- that loss less well.

we've heard from our membership anecdotally that they are not getting hired because they are in the guard or reserve. employers -- is one of the questions they are often asked -- are you in the guard or reserve? are you anticipating deploying any time soon? there are bills in the house and the senate designed to strengthen protections. it will make that law a little bit tougher. >> those protections are the protections put into the law that prohibits discrimination against members of the guard and reserve in connection with their military service. >> yes, ma'am. having employment rights be a little stronger is always a good thing. but we think that giving incentives to employers -- is better to dangle the carrot and

break out the stake. -- it is better to dangle the carrot and break out of the stick. it is really a tough question. we have been trying to work with employers to are smart job fairs to show the value of a bar or reservists. of a five-year period. their skills are going to be sharper. i deployed with a unit in iraq. we had heavily mechanical -- and we had a lot of mechanics in the civilian world who i would say that after the nine months we were deployed, tearing engines out and rebuilding them in a foot and a half of moon dust sand in the desert without any

electricity, water, without any lift, basically improvising this. these are engines that run the trucks that they were pared back in their civilian lives that make that much better and more efficient when they returned home. that is a job of selling that to potential employers, because the army and marine corps, which i understand is going to operation -- operate on a same model, with respect to reserves, will not change that because of commitments. >> let me turn to the senator for questions, and i have additional questions when he is completed. >> i appreciate you being here and getting us insight on what we need to do about employment for veterans. my state has about 12% of the

population are veterans, so we have a lot of need and issues that come up. when i was mayor, esgr, we always signed up on it because we wanted to make sure that people were taken care of. i have a couple questions, and it anyone wants to answer that is ok. to create an incentive for the businesses -- they know they are going to be gone for a period of time, the question is how long can you keep those jobs open. is there an opportunity to create incentives, incentivize them, not only to hire them, but that over -- open? >> i have testified about this several times in the past. tax incentives, while nice from

a political viewpoint, is not a driver to hire. employers love getting people off of active duty, and would be willing to support people from the national guard or reserve will if they were compensated when their employees were taken away. mr. sulayman works for me, it's called up, i want a cash stipend. that is the cost of doing business. i cannot spend the tax credit. one of the problems with a lot tax credits is that once the department of labor laze on all their tracking requirements, and it may cost me $11,000 for all the reporting -- >> to keep track of that --

>> i will not be making that up. >> if there is an opportunity to make a cash differentials, you can at least keep the workflow moving -- >> you have a bigger systemic problem. it was written for when people are caught on the weekend or two weeks. it was not designed for people being gone away for 24 months. it is an anachronism. what is happening now, and we documented this when the iowa brigade was called up, they had 750 people who were unemployed. they did not lose their jobs when they were in afghanistan. they lost their jobs before the left, because it was announced, day 160 from mobilization, and most of them lost their jobs because the employer realized if

i lay you off during a recession, i am not subject to this because you have your orders in hand. if you say that we are cut to make it effective the moment you announce, nobody will ever hire a member of the national guard. you have a systemic problem. until you fix that problem, everything else is going to be abandoned. >> sir, i agree in large part with what mr. daywalt said. one of the things that has to be considered is that less than 1% of the population has served in these conflicts. this is not a situation where like world war ii where you at 11% is the figure, and everybody had a brother, cousin, husband, wife, sister -- there was a relative or neighbor of somebody who was close to you.

everybody at sacrifice. there was rationing of sugar and gas stance. my grandmother, my grandfather went away, at all his brothers, and is interesting to hear my grandmother talked about silk stockings and not have stockings' during the war. it is just weird. it is something that is -- i have been in the marines for 14 years, and that does not enter my mind. employers have to understand there is a sacrifice associated with the wars that have been fought and that while tax incentives or direct stipends -- those are the carrots that we come to understand are the best solutions and we can afford to do. that would be great, but it is also a matter of the country's

shared obligation. it is more obligation. the reservists i took over, a lot of them lost their jobs before we left. hard economic times, your job is gone. under ucera at the top disappears, you do not have to find another position. employers understand this is part of a shared sacrifice, and hopefully as afghanistan winds down, this becomes less of a problem, but as senator mccaskill pointed out, the unprecedented use and the army generation force model that i was talking about, it remains to be seen exactly what effect that is what to have in the future, continuing an operational reserve. we feel it is a moral obligation, a small percentage of the population that has been doing the fighting in the possible deployment --

>> let me hold you there. i have one quick question. o -- iuary, 2007, g zeroao ga am coming more to the feeling that maybe we consolidate these in the department of veterans, focused in that arena, give me a couple of quick thoughts. i think there are so many department of labor tries, but veterans understand veterans, at all, streamlined it, and focus on what we should be doing, and that is employing, retraining veterans cannot in concert with their benefits. >> yes, sir. >> take your time. >> there is legislation in that

house that is currently working its way through hr 4072, which iva supports and is designed to take the programs and transfer its wholesale to the v.a. will subscribe to the thinking that veterans affairs is what the veteran thinks of -- where do i go for help? i am going to the v.a. the fact that the legislation is written to make an address change is a good thing, because it is not diminishing any of the functions of the vets program. >> it seems if you are a bit, you are coming in, you are trying to figure out do i need more education, if i want to be in this job, and do i need any medical assistance for the issues that i might have or might not have, but go to one

place? >> yes, sir, and there is employment out reached. adding dol vets become v.a. vets makes sense because it permits that duplication, at its centralizes it. i talked about the numbers and the out reached for veterans small business, we feel v.a. should be a conduit come up that dol should be a conduit. veterans come v.a. -- that is the same thing with dol moving to the v.a. >> i appreciate it. you answered my second question, which is small business. i think the same thing, we want

to make sure it is as streamlined as possible. there is some good effort been done to move entrepreneurship. tap has a lot of work to be done. the mind of a soldier going into at having to take that program and figure out -- they are not focused on that. their focus on thank god i am , y, z.. i just met in alaska some small companies that was all veterans, incredible work they are doing, worldwide operations, small manufacturing business, but they took their skill, turned it into a business that's trouble getting their business together, but because of enough of them banded together, they had some capital. it seems like that is an incredible track for veterans from someone who comes from the small business world. this is a huge opportunity for

innovation. >> i would like to add to what he does that, senator. i'm on the small-business council of the u.s. chamber, and i've had 11 different ideas on how to help the national guard and reserve, one of which is for the government to put up a pool of money -- and this would only help 40% of people in the national guard -- a pool of money where they can draw no interest so they can buy a franchise. veterans tend to hire other veterans. everybody in that jobs, -- i everybody in vet jobs, they do not discriminate. while they are gone, their family can be running that while they are deployed, and when they come back, there is no employment problem, no loss of

income, but it would only help 10% to 40% of that. entrepreneurship -- veterans -- there has been a great study that shows some of your best entrepreneurs are prior military because they have that all- important quality called leadership and they can understand risk. if i made a mistake out there, it might cost some of my troops their lives. you make a decision very quickly. entrepreneurship would be a big part. there is no silver bullet. i'm fascinated when i come up here because everybody is looking for the silver bullet that will solve all the problems. your problem is what of hassett. you have to do 13 things -- and none of them are cheap. >> thank you for what you are doing, but you are right on the franchise peace. i have seen reports on

franchisers, the veteran component, they are looking for, because it is like a mission, and they are on it. they figure out how to move it through it, but there issue is capital. if you do a franchise, there is no $5,000 issue. it is $250,000 or more. >> the international franchise association sponsors a program and we are part of that. we think that is a good solution. it is a peas. -- it is a piece of the puzzle. >> beebe could put it in a fund for low-interest loans. more than just the department of labour.

there's something touching veterans and almost every agency of government, all for the right reason because people want to help better the. what this hearing today as shown is one piece of that that we have exposed is this report that everybody is supposed to file. you guys are doing a great jobs and we do not have your data. the committee got data from the department of labor that showed one company hired 400% better and more than they employed. clearly -- that that is like a joke. it is like a joke, a bad joke. let me ask about certification -- this is something that was scandalous, that the sba had to deal with, where somebody was claiming to be a veteran, was getting the advantages, and was not a better. even worse, an example they were

claiming a service disabled veteran and they were not even a better. how can we certified veterans for advantages that we tried to put into a law for them that does not hinder it the entrepreneurship of them as they moved into the business world, and second, when about -- how many veterans are being hired different for companies to get the benefits that are associated with a battered-owned business? -- with a veteran-owned business? do you think the government dints the surface of getting that front? >> i can tell you that i have heard of fronting. we have not heard anything anecdotally. i talked to folks at sba and dol and sba on those issues a couple times.

the process that the v.a. goes through to survive it veterans businesses is mandated, and i understand the intent was to eliminate some of those issues and abuses. but it is also making it difficult for veteran-owned companies, to get into the system. you were talking about some of the bureaucracy. if you look at vetbiz.gov, and others which are general sites. there are multiple touch points, which makes it difficult for veterans to know what to do. anecdotally on that point, i have heard several veterans who have gone through the credential in process and think now i can

do business with the federal government only to figure out they did not have to go to that process to do business with other arms of the federal government. we certainly have heard not necessarily from our membership, but through the media and news about instances like sba and veterans either fronting or companies claiming to be sdbo's that are not. and talking to the veterans out rich folks at sba, a set historically the rate is very low. -- they said historically that rate is very low. the self-certification used by sba is probably the way to go, but at some small barriers. you got to produce a certificate of incorporation that showed a veteran and the better an's form, something that is more than self-certifying. what exactly that would be and

how best bet would be done i could not say off the top of my head, adding some small hurdles while still allowing that small business to have a low barrier to entry into business with the federal government is probably the to go, and you would weed out most of that. fronting i think at that point -- just taking somebody to the woodshed judicially speaking is probably the way to end that. >> i wonder if we are doing the oversight necessary to find the front thing. what this hearing has talked -- taught me is we are not paying attention. we are passing laws and then we are not paying attention. that is why we are going to try to stay on this from a contract standpoint and try to continue to pay attention to see if we can under the donna know what is

gone on out there, but it has not been uncovered in any way. that me ask you, mr. captain, -- mr. kympton, i am fascinated by your organization which is a win, win, win, and i assume this is being done with charitable corporate fun -- which charitable funds. >> there is no government money at this time. >> how many can you do a year and how big is your organization's budget, because as a great example of where the private sector -- but not for profit sector does a better job and government in trying to assist not only veterans, but the community at large as it relates to the various organizations that you get the

lush it in. how does this work? do you provide the money for the stipends? >> our planning figure for a budget is $10,000. and that is six months of living stipends so he or she can work in a volunteer capacity within in the organization. all that money comes currently from private dollars, either corporate or individuals who have seen the dog up pleasing patterns within these not-for- profit community organizations. the living stipend we pay them so they can serve in a volunteer capacity represents roughly 7000 of that $10,000, and it is pegged to the americorps living cited. it varies by location and by the

cost of living in that location. the intent is that they cancer in a volunteer capacity cannot reconnect into a mission while they are working for a longer term outcome for the better, and whether that is full time or employment with an organization with which they are serving or one they have targeted, or segway into continuing education, replacing them into the ongoing role of committee service. >> argued a united way organization -- are you a united way organization? >> no, we are not. most recently we organized these bellows into classes, a military cuts up, so we brought $114 in san diego and started them as a class, and after their orientation, a kind of military-

flavored orientation -- >> out the you find these veterans? >> -- how do you find these veterans? >> for work fellows or volunteers who have served with us in communities and have seen what these fellows are capable of. >> had you done national guard folks? >> we have. >> you are talking about a six- month dollar, someone who has been deployed and has come back, and serve it in the national guard, they beat this model to submit to try to promote, not through government, but in the private sector to focus on the national guard population. it seems to me that the flexibility that a not-for- profit represents in terms of not being as worried about future deployment upsetting the business model, makes a lot

more sense than maybe some but of the other kinds of work that a guard or reservist could look for. >> i can tell you both and a deadly and it did at that organizations in which our fellows cirque deeply respect what they have brought to those organizations. in terms of the skill sets and unique experiences, and they are getting a volunteer who are bringing this experiences to the table. they keep coming back to us. we have placed more than one at habitat for humanity, and that is due to the impact those veterans are having. >> i bet they get those organizations a shot in the arm. i think it is a terrific organization. i want to get senator carper a chance. >> thank you.

to all our witnesses, welcome. it is very nice to see you, and we welcome each of our witnesses. thank you. who is that guy sitting next to chairman mccaskill? here we are. i want to express my thanks. we have a situation where a for work better and, and the idea of being able to pursue a degree or post-secondary program while being on active duty, that is great. because of the nature of the work that you do in the military, that is great. we have folks who do long- distance learning, they did a

great job. they screen people for these programs, making sure they get the support and are prepared for jobs. it will enable them to be productive citizens and pay off their loans. as mr. daywalt knows, let's go back and revisit the way the law used to be. it used to be that 15% of the revenues of proprietary schools had to come from sources other than the federal government, and 85% could come from the government. then it was changed to 90% could come from the government. now the rules are such that 10% could come from other places

could come from the g.i. bill at folks on active duty, so we have 100% of the income could come from the federal government. not a good situation. we're trying to address this and work our way back to the 90-10 rule. ask if ied to just could of mr. daywalt, and others, if you want to jump in here, employers we know our readily snapping up some of our veterans. some are not. those who have completed their degrees, using the gi bill benefits, and one of the question is, why is that, and could there be a correlation here between the quality of the post-secondary training folks are getting from the g.i. bill,

tuition assistance, and whether or not it is doing as much in terms of job preparation as we think it ought to be getting? could you speak to that, ted? >> sure. i will start by saying if we did not have a national guard problem, we would not be talking about the current unemployment today. what we see overall, the bulk of the veterans coming off active duty are getting employed or the back-to-school and then they get employed. d,en they are totally separate employers love to get a hold of you. 20 years, it was the over-50 veteran could not get a job. one of the best programs dol did was put in computer training programs. they have the skills. they just did not know how to

use a computer. today's and carmen, you cannot use a computer -- -- today's environment, you cannot use a computer, you are not employable. it is that young veterans in the national guard that your problems are. kier question, employers want to hire them. we have 6000 companies that use that jobs on a regular basis. i can only think of one company that i would say is anti- military. >> out of how many? >> 5000. only one that i would call anti- military. the government contractors -- this is going to be a big stink about the weather channel did recently, but for the most part, when there are ucera problems is

because an individual made a stupid judgment, not corporate policy. overall, they want to hire them , and you got to fix a systemic problem. if you fix a problem -- go back to change the policy 2007. into dozen 6 -- in 2006, the unemployment rate for young veterans was low. in two dozen that -- in 2008, the unemployment rate went over 23%. it doubled in the young ones because that is where most of the members of the national 29-year-old 18- to veterans. >> any other comments?

i am looking for a correlation between folks using the gi bill and the tuition assistance and is not preparing them for a real job. >> it does prepare them. the gi bill is working. when they come out of schools on the other side, it prepares them. a lot of great companies, man is a good example, they hire them and do not want to take that away. >> thinking about stones left unturned, and you brought up the gi bill, mantech is as networked as anyone. our numbers speak for ourselves. there is one thing that i heard universally for people within

mantech, is there is some don't interred that could make a difference, moved the needle in a significant way? i am no expert on this, but something for all must consider is is there a way for veterans who are leveraging the gi bill and try to improve their skills at so the become more employ able, and we see veterans leveraging the gi bill, and in the process, they lose their security clearance. for an employer like mantech, and most of our work is mission- oriented, so it deserves -- so that it serves the military -- the security clearance is a necessary component. anything that could be done to help preserve that clarence -- clearance could be a needle

mover for everyone. >> thank you very much. any other comments? >> i know you are used to hear people talk about the gi bill issue, but that is something that we thank you for your leadership on in trying to change the 90-10 roll, and we have heard anecdotally and we think we have examples and there are plenty of statistics to back up the idea that the veterans, and try to take a bandage of the best program that is out there, the gi bill, especially the post 9/11 g i bill, with certifications, but professional degrees and trades and everything else, basically. >> and transferable.

>> is an awesome program. there was a differential between the post world war ii to gi bill and this one. the post-9/11 g i built research parity on the post-world war ii gi bill and could be a big game changer to take advantage of that and take advantage of the loopholes. we have found that that has been an issue for them with not completing degrees because they have exhausted the gi bill on really expensive degrees that were not going to prepare them for the jobs they were taking, criminal justice technology, for instance. i had a small business before i got deployed in construction, and i was reviewing some of the

online university courses in construction management technology, and i could not figure out how that would have applied to any of my subcontractors that i used or me as a credit manager for a fortune 500 construction company. that is one of those things if where you go to school and you get the degree and you look for a job and try to start a business as a small contractor and what to do business with government in construction, those sorts of things, that is not but to impress anybody can help you out, and that is one of the things we have found as we have look at the issue. >> anybody else? >> to ms. sullivan's comment on its sturdy clearance, we have heard that, and it will take time. in our country the individual that does not have the security

clearance. the job as the security clearance. when you step out of that job, you are no longer cleared. you have to start all over again with a new background investigation which is expensive, which i like to make jokes when one contractor hires somebody, they have not built a job, they have created a vacancy somewhere else. when that person goes to school, they got to start all over again. the solution is to create some billets that would be holding billets -- if i wanted to go back to school, i would be put leads me to that security clearance. when i apply for a job, i have

the clearance and place because i can switch to the billet for that company. a lot of unions want to fight that because they cannot do the background checks at dss, the same problems with the certifications of veterans. we talked for years about a guy who drives a truck in of terry, a cdl license, able to get another license cut in the civilian world, no, we're not going to have them come out and compete with us. that would be a simple way to fix part of that problem. >> i think we passed that? >> the unions organized a program because they are in huge need.

i am not sure the paradigm of one group against is there because the legislation we pass was opening up the doors, but i know how much it for hard hats program has been marked successful in my state. when i walked out of here with the labor unions come out about what they are doing. >> it is to help temper joint the -- it is to help them joined the unions, which is great. if you come out of the army, you have been in the army 25 years, you will not want to be hired as a journeyman electrician. that is what the union wants to do. you will go to a right to work state. that is rude reality. >> thank you. as the mission continues, we are using the people of service as a strategy for venture.

we are finding that it is leading to employment, continued education. currently, madam chairman, we're not receiving any federal funding to do that. i believe the gi bill represents an opportunity to expand what we allow veterans to focus at funding on and use the training program or the education program that they want to use as a vehicle to further employment. that vehicle is service. finding a year in service might just be possible within the gi bill itself. >> thanks. thanks for holding this hearing. captain, like to see you -- nice to see you. >> i know one potential might be -- and maybe it is here, maybe in the veterans committee

-- the goal is to make sure if you are an electrician in the military that you can make that transition to the private sector without having to retrain, go to the process. that position -- that legislation was pretty significant. maybe the question we have asked, where that is progressing, and that is one of the biggest complaints i hear. we see people who are a truck driver in afghanistan, you can be a truck driver anywhere. they need to get the legislation passed and what dod is doing on that. a side note there. >> at me finish up this -- let me finish up with this. do that to businesses represented here, do you feel like going to the requirement of fell out this form as in any way been beneficial to your company,

even though you're department of labour is not paying attention to it? >> aggregate so much information because we are publicly traded. information we collect or report, it comes to that the attention of management. i do not think we have looked at vets 100a as a management tool or resources. to that end, we are publicly traded, there are a lot of reports we need to file relative to compliance. i am not sure we have never stepped back from at thought about it in that sense. >> i am wondering if we need is public, if it would help. i mean, if the date that was publicly available, which you not notice that they did not have your data? >> we think providing public

ccess to all that's -- vets' data would provide tough pitchers with more information about the government's use of the date it will lead to new submissions. we think transparency is the right approach. >> of the reasons this data is such a waste of time is nobody has been paying attention to the fact that they are not paying attention to it. if it had to be publicly posted, perhaps the agency would feel -- and they are not here today, but they will hear from us. we will make sure that they are aware that we have discovered that no one is paying attention. they are not checking this data, not validate the data, not sharing the data. it is just a check that somebody is making in a box somewhere and

taking energy from companies who are doing it. if you are not doing what you're supposed to be doing, i do not think anybody will ever know it. perhaps the way we do it is too, before we try to do away with it, we try to make it public and see the effort -- and see if it can become transparent because we do away with it. unwinding the decision put in place because people were try to help a real problem -- unwinding the legislation we put in place because people were trying to help a real problem is wrong.

i realize some of the questions that might come on reporting, and when i talk to folks inside mantech closely related to compliance reporting, at the end of the day, from a practical sense of being an employer, it does not change our behavior in the, because we are so mission focused. the work we have our four positions required by the government that are mission focused. we will do what we need to do anyway. it is not one way or the other, it will not change our behavior. >> it is time we look and see what is a meaningful way the government to impact this problem, because this is not a meaningful way to impact it. there are ways we can. the new jeep i built it is one way. -- the new gi bill is one way.

organizations like mr. kympton 's, and the web sites, those are the things that are run to make a difference, and focusing on the card problem since that is what is driving these unemployment numbers. those that want to do the right thing because it supports what your company is will do it. those that do not will not, and thenot sure reporting to government will do that. if you would get us your information on guard and reserve hires, that will be instructed to us. is there anything you could add to the record about things we should and wind -- unwind, programs that should be

consolidated -- there is controversy about moving east to the v.a., at some of it is turf, some of it is legitimate. some people like mr. sulayman think we should move sba functions to the v.a. the jury is out on that. i want you to feel comfortable continuing to get information as we track this. i wish i could tell you government contractors are doing a good job of hiring veterans. unfortunates, the government cost incompetence in this area is making that impossible to know. we have examples of companies doing the right thing, and is a pleasure for me to comment contractors. most of the time i sit in this chair i am not doing that. most of the time i am doing the opposite of that, so it is pleasant for me to compliment you on the work you're doing in

this regard. thank you all for being here today, and we will try to focus on this problem in a meaningful way that does not cost businesses too much of a headache and helps get veterans where they need to be, which is being gainfully employed in a career which allows them to shine. that you very much. -- thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> congress is in today. the house is ready to gavel in in about 10 minutes for warning

hour, and will be back at 2:00 p.m. for a legislative business. they will continue working on amendments to the energy and water development bill. they began work on that last week. the house but at 6:30 p.m. eastern. live coverage of the house noon on c-span. it is primary day in five states across the country, but the focus is on wisconsin where voters are determining where there -- whether their governor is to be recalled. we will simulcast wisn coverage milwaukee tonight, and that coverage comes up tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern, and that will be on c-span2. we have a preview of what is

ahead today in wisconsin this morning on "washington journal." host: let's talk about elections happening around the country today with david marks, a senior editor at politico. everyone is focused on the wisconsin recall election. how are the polls reading? guest: this election has been growing for over a year. in 2011 scott walker took on an issue, collective bargaining rights in wisconsin, that angered democrats, and his opponents were able to get enough signatures to force a recall election, and that is what we're seeing now a year and a half after the events that triggered it. host: how much effort is being poured into this race?

how much are they contributing? how are the numbers in terms of dollars balancing out? guest: the nations are coming largely from groups one might expect to get in this kind of election, and for the republican side, governor walker, it is the koch brothers, republican-allied groups. for democrats, it is the union groups. that is what drove the election in the first place. it was not the democratic mainstream. it was not the obama administration. that is what has led to mr. barrett, the democratic candidate, being behind at the polls at this point. >> host: it says almost 2/street of voters -- 2/3 voters expected

to vote today. what are you looking for on the ground, and how is this being monitored? we have reports the will be witnesses to make sure everything is above board. guest: both parties have an army of lawyers out there to go after anything that they see is inconsistent. they are expecting a tight outcome, and either side is saying it could lead to recap in the coming days. this may not be decided tonight, but both sides are clearly bracing for a lot people who might normally be involved in policy -- politics. firefighters, police, union members. maybe people who have not been active in politics before. it will be interesting to see how high up voter turnout will will be. host: historic is a word being

used to describe this. how does this work for governor walter k? what happens if he is recall? how quickly with the date -- how quickly would he vacate office? guest: when the california governor was recalled, it took four weeks or five weeks before schwarzenegger took office. if governor walker is defeated, barrett immediately gets into office. we will see a relatively quick turnaround. it was interesting to see that walker was on the ballot relatively quickly into his term. he was in office less than two years, and already he is facing a recall. that is much sooner than many

other states. host: what could happen even if governor walker retains his seat? where we -- are we looking at a shift of power in wisconsin? guest: an interesting question and a lot of scenarios that could play out. that is a race where the activists on either side had a big stake, larger than the governor itself, because it has not gotten much notice, and if you target it, you could probably affect the outcome. it is entirely possible that governor walker could stay in office as governor, but the democratic challenger could the heat is on the tenant governor so you could have a republican governor and a democratic lieutenant governor or vice versa.

then there is the state senate races your reference. democrats have start -- have tried to defeat. democrats have been mixed bag and it will be a tough like to see them pull through. host: new jersey democratic primary, a sitting congressman is being challenged? guest: we see this once a decade. in this case the map was redrawn, and we see democratic incumbents facing off. both were elected to congress in 1996. for many years they were close

political allies. that franchot only goes so far. they chose to run against each other. they both thought they had the best chance pricks there are not -- they both thought they had the best chance here. it has gotten quite nasty and dirty. in california two representatives facing off as well. guest: this is in the sand fernand note-based district. there is different. it is a new primary system in which the top two finishers will face each other again in november. it is possible these candidates are not finished with the other.

in november and may be running against each other once again. neither one will clinch victory tonight unless one gets and out and out majority, in which case they would become the nominee. that seems unlikely. host: banks so much for talking with us. >> that a recall election is under way. the polls close at 9:00 p.m. eastern, and we will bring you coverage bringwisn in milwaukee, plus speeches. that is all tonight beginning at 10:00 p.m. eastern. political coverage continues with republican primaries today in five states. the final republican primary is in utah on june 26. late august, the republican national convention in tampa, theida, but by september,

democratic convention. election day is november 6. you can follow our coverage at c-span.org/campaign2012. the house is back for legislative work. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lay b.c.s. the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. june 5, 2012. i hereby appoint the honorable adrian smith to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 17, 2012, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by

the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes each but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, for five minutes. mr. congressly: when we look at this economy, we should ask, what would ronl reagan do? when he took office in 1981, president reagan inherited an economy in deep recession. during the past three years, a number of republicans laud the accomplishments of ronald reagan in spurring economic recovery during that decade. as they often point out president reagan cut taxes.

of course so did president obama. the recovery act which i proudly supported cut taxes for 95% of all americans, averaging $400 for individuals and $800 for families. when that tax cut expired and when republicans refused to extend it, i was again proud to join president obama to enact the payroll tax cut, averaging $1,000 per family. but tax cuts alone do not make a robust recovery. the other thing ronald reagan did was preside over a nation with a sharp increase in public sector employment from local, state, and federal levels because while today's republicans may try to argue otherwise, teaching jobs, firefighters have jobs, police jobs are jobs. in fact, three of the last four economic recoveries had one thing in common, public sector employment increased. 2.5 years into the recovery from 2001, total public sector employment was 1% higher. 2.5 years into the recovery from the 1980 recession, total

public sector employment was 3% higher. and 2.5 years into the recovery from the 1980 recession, total public sector employment under ronald reagan was almost 3.5% higher than it was at the start of the recovery. in contrast today's recovery from the recent recession has seen total public sector decrease by 2.5%. largely because the republicans have gotten their way in trying to -- real jobs are lost. had total public sector employment merely held steady, the unemployment rate today would be 7.8% not 8.2%. instead we lost 600,000 public sector jobs, teachers, police officers, firefighters, librarians, and other dedicated public servants. if the geel truly were to foster a robust economic recovery, you think today's republicans would be looking at how the nation worked its way out of previous recessions.

obviously that's not the case. last september president obama put forward the american jobs act, a proposal to cut taxes on workers and businesses to incentivize hiring and to fund necessary infrastructure improvements. economists predicted the american jobs act would have added up to one million new jobs and spurred g.d.p. growth by an extra 1.5%. these are proposals that have traditionally earned bipartisan support. for example, one of the single largest infrastructure projects ever was under the creation of president dwight d. eisenhower, the interstate highway program. in 1982, while he was still wrk -- working toward economic recovery, ronald reagan proposed the highway and bridge repair program to create jobs in the public sector. sadly, republican opposition have kept the act from coming to floor for the vote. many republicans decried the use for additional revenue to help offset any increase in national debt. apparently they forgot when faced with rising deficits ronl

reagan looked to revenue increases, closing loopholes and raising taxes. yes, he raised taxes in 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987. it's unfortunate that today's republicans have lost sight of the value of investing in america in a fiscally responsible manner because the nation's construction industry has been the hardest hit. america lost more than two million construction jobs in the recession that began in 2007. infrastructure investments don't just create jobs, they also repair dangerous bridges and make our loadway -- roadway safer. they renovate hospitals and improve water treatment plants. as part of the recovery act we enacted the build american bonds program that leveraged $4 billion in federal funds to 181 businesses in private sector funding. completing more than 2,000 projects in every state in the contry. i introduced a bill to extend

the successful program because there remain unmet needs in our communities, and there are millions of construction workers awaiting the opportunity to return to work and communities that would benefit from the projects. we haven't even had a hearing on that bill. mr. speaker, dwight eisenhower did not subscribe to the current rubble mantra that investing in america was something to be shunned. ronald reagan did not share the current republican dictum that serving the one's country in public service is less than an noble endeavor and a way to prosperity is through devastating cuts to the public sector. congress must act to ensure long-term fiscal dibblet but not come at the expense of millions of americans struggling to get back to work. as we contemplate our economic policies, we really should ask what would ronald reagan do? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house

in recess until noon today.

>> over the past four years pulitzer prize winning author david maraniss has been researching and writing his 10th book barack obama the story. it included traveling the globe and speaking with the president's relatives in kenya and discovering his ancestry on the stores of lake victoria. barack obama, the story, comes out in bookstores on june 19, but book tv will give you an early look with exclusive pictures and video, including our trip to kenya as we travel

with the author in january of 2010. so join us, sunday, june 17, at 6:00 p.m. eastern time. later at 7:30 that same night, your phone calls, emails, and tweets for david maraniss on c-span2's book tv. >> the debate is a biannual event in toronto bringing together newsmakers and leaders to debate current issues. in may panelists debated the future of the european union. panelists include british historian and harvard university history professor, neil ferguson . during the 90-minute debate, the panel debated the european debt crisis, the future of the euro, and whether greece should leave the eurozone. >> ladies and gentlemen, goonk. my name is roger griffith, co-organizer of this debate series. my colleague, patrick, and it is

my privilege to once again be your moderator. i want to start by welcoming the worldwide audience watching this debate live right now on the internet, including via canada's leading news websites, the globalmail.com. welcome also to the global t vcht and radio audience tuning into this debate everywhere from business news networks to cbc radio ideas to c pack and c-span throughout the continental united states. timely, hello to you, the 2,700 people who once again filled roy thompson hall to capacity for a debate. we have had some stubborn debates in this very hall. christopher and tony blair, who can forget that evening on religion's impact on the world. henry kissinger a year ago today was on this stage, 82 years of

age, participating in his first ever public debate. eloquently arguing against china owning the 21st century. and just a matter of months ago nobel laureate paul krugman and u.s. treasury secretary larry summers went head to head on the future of the north american economy. look, as entertaining and engaging as those contests were, they did not have the urgency of tonight's debate. in the last month the unthinkable has become the thinkable. when it comes to the future of europe. as early as next month with the second greek elections, we could see greece choose to leave out of choice or necessity the eurozone. many people predicted that could cause a catastrophic spike in the costs of the two of the world's largest debtor nation,

spain and italy, and a bank run throughout the eurozone. the result could be an implosion both politically and economically of the european union that might plunge that continent, certainly it would, into a recession, but it may be also north america and the world. but, but as dire as the scenarios that have been promulgated in the media about europe's future are right now, they need to be set against a record, a record that two of our debaters will lay out for you tonight. a record of real accomplishments and important history. the european union borne out of the second world war encompasses now six decades of continuous history. some 27 member states, 23 different languages. we have two in canada and it's a

problem, they do 23. and an advanced economy that is responsible for a quarter of the world's economic output. in a sweep of human history, europe's institution, its values, its common goals are rightly acknowledged as some of humankind's most important accomplishments. so i think what we are all wondering tonight, us in this room, people around the world, especially people in europe, is can the considerable strength that europe enjoys allow it to survive this unprecedented crisis and maybe even emerge from the other side more united and stronger? or as two of our debaters will make the case tonight, is the eurozone crisis itself an expression of a series of deep and fatal flaws buried in the core of the euroitself -- euro itself and the concepts that

animate the european union. tonight we are going to find out. we are going to try to answer these all-important questions by tackling the big geopolitical question of our time. we are going to do that by debating the motion be it revolved -- resolved the european experiment has failed. before introducing the all-star european cast of debaters that we have assembled, let me take a moment to recognize the organization who alone is responsible for staging these evenings. it's really thanks to its generosity and public spiritedness that we have the opportunity twice a year to gather here and listen to some of the world's brightest minds debate the big issues facing our country and the global. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in a round of applause for the co-founders of the foundation, peter and melanie hung -- munk.

>> now, the moment we have all been waiting for, let's get our debaters out here on center stage and our debates under way. big round of applause the two debaters arguing for tonight's motion, neil ferguson and joseph joffe. >> let's get their opponents out on stage, daniel conpendits and lord peter mendelssohn. [applause]

introductionings. -- introductions, with neil's presence on the stage again tonight, peter munk joked with me earlier we should rename these events the ferguson debates. neil is one for one of the munk debates. i think suffered a fairly staggering loss to henry kissinger a year ago on this very stage, but he started the munk, the very first, in 2008, with a big win with charles crouthimer defeating the late richard holbrooke and samantha power on the question of the world being a safer play with a republican in the white house. can he, ladies and gentlemen, make it two for one tonight? we'll say this. undenyably brain cell for brain cell he's one of the most

formidable debaters of his generation. he's also a celebrated harvard protester, a daily beast news week columnist, a documentary film emprisaro, and internationally best-selling author. our own niall ferguson. [applause] >> to my immediate left our second debater speaking again in favor of tonight's motion brings a vital perspective, the view of the german people on the fast moving euro zone crisis. he is the publisher of the prestigious jerman weekly, germany's equivalent of "time" magazine or canada's own mclean's. he's the author of numerous best-selling books on geopolitics, including uber power, america's imperial temptation, his analysis of geopolitical events appears regularly everywhere from "the new york times," the new republic, he lon times

literary supplement. representing europe's uber power tonight in this contest, ladies and gentlemen, josef joffe. [applause] >> the story of daniel many in ways is synonymous with the european experiment. born in france in 1945 to german and jewish parents, who had fled nazi germany, mr. kohn-bendit burst upon the european scene in the 1960's as a key leader of the student revolts in france. half a century later he remains fondly known as danny the red, a highly influential voice in europe serving as co-president of the green free european alliance group in the european parliament. he sits on the e.u. parliamentaryry -- plarets

committees for economic affairs and constitutional affairs, two things i'm sure we are going to discuss tonight, and he's also co-president of the respected spinelli group, a european blarmente association dedicated to the federalist project in europe. off the plane today from zurich, ladies and gentlemen, daniel. thank you. [applause] our final debater tonight speaking against the motion is one of europe's most prominent and eloquent advocates for the cause of european federalism in the face of the current crisis. he has held numerous senior cabinet positions in the united kingdom as a labor m.p. under tony blair and gordon brown. most important to us tonight he was great britain's e.u. commissioner from 2004 to 2008 where he gained an intimate understanding of the internal political and economic workings

of europe. today he is the chairman of the global council, an international strategic advisory firm. to cap off his many talents he is a gifted writer. his autobiography, third man, published in 2010, is a sunday times number one bestseller for five consecutive weeks. please welcome from london, england, lord peter mendelssohn. plause blast >> before i call on the debaters, i need to involve you the audience. first i want to ask everyone to do something in this hall which is usually verboten in an auditorium such as this is which is power up your smart phones. for the duration of tonight's debate you can weigh in on the proceedings by tweeting to our #at munkeurope. you can also follow the ensuing

conversation@munkdebate. again we want you to be involved in this debate with the audience around the world who is watching online. we also have two v.i.p. twitterers coming in with large twitter folings. they are ian bremer who appeared on this stage last fall. he's the founder and president of theure asia group, a best-selling author. and the second v.i.p. blogger who is going to be tweeting tonight is salmon felix, 50,000-plus followers on twitter. he's a veritable justin bieber on global ffpblets we welcome him tonight via twitter. we'll have their handles up on the screen so if you have your smart phone plug them in. one last housekeeping point. it works well if every debate, we would want you to help us keep our debaters to their allotted times, six minutes for their opening lee marks, three minutes for the closing, by

having a screen that will appear up there with our clock, our countdown clock, when it reaches zero, join me in a round of applause for our debaters. that will keep them on their toes. now, you-all voted on your way in here, this is a critical part of these debates. we ask you to consider the motion, be it resolved the european experiment has failed. i'm going to see if we have those early numbers now. so again this may not be the complete vote for the first ballot, but it should give us something close to where public opinion in this room is at. interesting. different than i thought. 41% in favor of the motion. 22% undecided. 37% -- wow. this is a split room. public opinion is in playwright now. we had a second question on your ballot on the way in where we

asked you depending on what you hear during the debates are you open to changing your vote? let's see that. whoa. this is an undecided audience. 90% of you could change your minds in the next hour and 45 minutes. only 10 of you are wade made up. i wonder -- are made up. i wonder who that 10% is. debate very much in play. i'm going to call on niall for the first opening statement. sir, you have six minutes. >> thank you. merci, gracias, vment iola. [speaking in a foreign language]

>> my personal favorite -- 3 p ways -- 33 ways of saying thank you in the european union. and i think that in itself illustrates why the european experiment has ended in failure. do you remember the experiments that you used to do as a kid with a chemistry set and you would keep adding chemicals one after the other to see what would finally produce an explosion? that's what they did in europe. they started with six. that wasn't enough. they went to nine. nothing. 10. a little bit of smoke, nothing more. 12. nothing. 15, still nothing. 25, beginning to bubble. 27 -- i'm absolutely certain that lord mendelssohn and daniel

cohn-bendit will tell you that the european experiment has succeeded because there's been peace in europe since it began in the 1950's. can we just knock that on the head? the european union has absolutely nothing to do with peace in europe. since world war ii. that was the achievement of nato. europe was not about war and peace, otherwise there would have been a european defense opportunity, and that was vetoed by the french in 1954. ladies and gentlemen, europe has to be judged in its own terms and its own terms were always economic. how did it do in the 1950's it grew at 4%. in the 1960's it was about the same. in the 1970's, 2.8%. in the 1980's, 2.1%. in the 1990's, 1.7%. and so on down to zero. integration has proceeded, european growth has declined.

the share of europe in global g.d.p. have fallen since 1980 from 31% to just 19%. since 1980, the e.u. has only grown faster than the united states in nine out of 32 years. never has this unemployment rate been lower than the u.s. unemployment rate. any of you investors? what were the worst equity markets of the last 10 years? greece, ireland, italy, finland, portugal, the netherlands, and belgium. the worst in the world. and on top of all this monetary union, the ultimate experiment gone wrong, we won, ladies and gentlemen, we said if you have a monetary union without labor market integration and without any fiscal federalism, it will blow up. i predicted that in an article in 2000. it is happening in real time in a chemistry lab on the other

side of the atlantic. but this was also a political experiment gone wrong. do you know what that experiment was? the experiment was to see if european peoples could be forced into ever closer union despite their wishes. by economic means because the political means would not have been acceptable. and the results were that if the european people voted against, they were told to try again. that happened to the danes in 1992. to the irish in 2001. and again for the pool of irish in 2008. they gave the wrong answer in the referendum so they were made to hold the referendum again. that tells you something about why this experiment has failed. because it's lost political legitimacy, ladies and gentlemen. that is what we see not only in greece but in government after government, 13 have fallen since this crisis began two years ago. and more will follow in the

months to come. finally, ladies and gentlemen, this has been a geopolitical failure. the european union was supposed to be a counter weight to the united states. do you remember? the hour of europe? that was supposed to be in 1991 when jack imagined that europe was going to solve the war in bosnia. 100,000 people died in that war, 2.2 million were displaced. until finally the united states had to step in and sort out of -- the mess. who do i call when i want to call europe was henry kissinger's famous question. finally the answer came, barronness ashton. nobody's ever heard of her nor have they ever heard from her. ladies and gentlemen, you are canadians. you know how hard it is to run a federal system with just 10 provinces and only two

languages. that's why you will understand readily than most why the european experiment with 27 provinces and a staggering 23 languages have ended in failure. thankfully here in canada i only have to use two or maybe three words now. thank you. merci. [applause] >> strong start to the debate from the pro side. i can see daniel literally ready to grab his podium in response. sir, you're up. >> goonk. -- good evening. i can say only in english. you know, i had to calm myself. i never heard such stupid thing.

and i will tell you why. i'm born in 1945. my parents flew from germ in 1933. my father was a lawyer. he should have been arrested. and then they head to south france because they were jew. my mother and my father. i am born after the landing of the troops in normandy. nine months later, you know biology, 1945, april, i'm born. imagine i would have said to my parents in 50 years there will be no military between france and germany, and this was not nato. no troops, no soldiers in all europe. you can travel in all europe. my friends would have said we have a problem. we have a kid he's talking too early and saying nonsense. so i tell you, i tell you, what

happened in europe it's a big thing because this europe was the most murdering region of the world. we created colonialism. we created fascism. we created communist. every bad thing was in turerop and we make two world war. and these two world war had to end so we can continue. did we not continue? this had to stop and we had to create something where the people make economy together, change things together, and why is this? they created in a big step the european union, then communism falls. and then there was a generation of gold and there were 80 million germans in europe and mitterrand said, you can never forget this, you have to deepen

the european integration. you have to deepen, but nowhere, not any more, there could be a hegemonic space in europe. that no more better than they had to discuss together, they had to fight in a parliament together, but no more war. then they created the europe. of course the euro is in trouble because none, never, a state, common state like europe, was done without war. after 1944 a.u. rise with bosnia and was europe, and it's true. i will never forget this. it's true that the americans came, but i tell you weigh had to take responsibility for the war. and then if you see the situation of europe today, the nation states can't take over the problem of deep crisis. they make fiscal crisis and

climate change. none one of these states alone. in 30 years none european state will be at the g-8, none of them will be -- only europe who then defends the european. and theure peaon and germany and france, etc. it's difficult. you're right. it's difficult. i tell you something. i prefer the european having difficulties to talk together than making war together. this is much better. it is only one language to make war. one language. so this is a completely crazy argument. of course we have translator, we can come to the european parliament and see how it works. finally, i will tell you europe is a dream. why after the fall of the war the polish want to get in? the hungarians?

they all voted to get in. why with a was it? is it so crazy, they could say we don't want to get in. because it's the future. it's a future that means it's not difficult. that means we can have backlash. but i tell you something and i am really, really believing, if we don't continue the european integration, then the european nation state will be in trouble. because it's ageing society. we need to be together to defend europe is an umbrella. europe is an umbrella to defend our vision how to live together. and we did it without war. you know, the united states and america we came together after a civil war. our civil war where were two

world wars and we europeans will learn to asks, -- to discuss, to discuss, i know, i know discussion can be too complicated. but i tell you something, an old jewish joke, if you had two solutions, should always -- choose always the third. this is europe. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, a powerful and heartfelt appeal to the european project. now up next speaking for the resolution josef joffe. [applause] >> i have to start by correcting my friend, niall. he's wrong about the phone

number. there is a phone number. the phone number is katherine ashton. you call the phone number then you get a computer voice, for germ press one. for france press two. that tells you where europe is at. but let me say something else. i think europe was a wonderful idea. after all, the god of gods, zeus, risked his marriage with the misses when he was so smitten by europa that he ran off with her. and the roman poet sings, till in the open sea he bores pride, the right-hand grasp a horn, the other upon his back. now, europe was also wonderful idea several years later when it decided to unify after the two most murderous wars in history. what a maffing story. first six nations get together.

they integrate, then vote now they are 27. then blow by blow common market for goods, capital, services, and people. democracy with european parliament. and finally no more track mas, the europe raines from port gal to the borders of poland. what would come next? of course the united states and europe. wrong, wrong. europe is crumbling before our eyes. the grandest experiment since the 13 american colonies became e pluribus une number. now faces its most deadly crisis. why has that seemingly march of progress ground to a halt? think about integration as a

mountain climb. in the beginning, in the foothills, it's nice and easy. as we rise the ascent gets tougher and the air gets thinner. finally, we reach the shear cliff, the eiger north face, so to speak. that cliff is the core of national sovereignty. this is where we are today with the euro our proudest achievement about to bury us. we have gone too far. what do you do next? there are only three ways, retreat, stop, or afack. attack the summit? and clime call it the united states of europe? just look at your party of 17, straggleers, miss creeants, cripples, free riders, because this is a very educated mountain, he would add there is no unification without war. we are the strongest faces.

this would happy, italy, germany, and by the way, of course, as danny already said, in the united states where the civil war was a war for national unification. now there's no such war, and there will be no such war in europe. thank god for that. there is no business mark, there is no lincoln in europe's future. and for -- but what does this deadly crisis tell us? it says you can't go to the summit unless you are both willing and able, but you are not. you are neither. nor will you be because, a, you can't and will not give up the biggest chunk of democratic sovereignty, which is the power to tax and spend, and b, you don't belong in the same climbing party to begin with. just two or three or four of you have the discipline, stamina.

the best are overweight, lame, or out of breath. so let's bring it down from the mountain. the hard political point is that europe is broke, and germany neither wants nor can pay for the rest. and the first even infrastructure is broke. the point is that the stragglers don't want to go back to camp to get into shape through a very painful regimen which has already killed so many governments. the point finally and most profoundly is about the zub born tens inate -- tenacity of the nation state which will not submit to a general will, not now when the core of its sovereignty is at stake. money, as the germans say, is where friendship stops and so does integration. it's no more cavorting of the foothills. it's facing the eiger north face which we can. so europe history now? we don't know.

but we know only one thing. that the experiment has failed in the sense that the wonderful dream of the 1950's, up, up, and away has collided with the nast reality of the nation state. that will not fade away. -- nasty reality of the nation state. that will not fade away. if truth be told how many frenchmen will want to part with 2,000 years of history. who wants to be ruled from brussels rather than his own capital? let me conclude if i may in this audience that has given victory to hitchins when they talked about god, let me conclude with a prayer nonetheless, let's pray that the crash of the europe, the most ambitious part of the experiment, will not bury the rest. and let's plead with zeus the savior -- to seiche europa -- to save europa, and europe, has not

conquered -- cannot conquer the sea that is a nation state. if she drowns, let can in a deant united states will not flourish, amen. thank you. [applause] >> thyme now for our final debater -- time now for our final debater, speaking against the motion, peter. sir, you have six minutes. >> thank you very much. first of all i must take niall and their sneering remarks about katherine ashton. two days ago the five determine members of the u.n. security council and germany, the great powers, went into very serious negotiations with iran about the development of their nuclear capability. who is leading the great powers?

who is leading the security council, permanent members? no, niall, it was not hilltry clinton it was katherine ashton. let's have a little less sneering, please, and a little more seriousness. now, i was under the impression it that canadians actually watched hockey on friday night rather than debated politics, but i guess you couldn't miss the opportunity of seeing all of us knock each other around this stage on the subject of europe, me an eng lashman, he a scotsman, he a german, and he sort of frenchman. which sounds like the beginning of a bad folk, really, which is what i understand many of you think europe and its currency are at the moment. but danny and i again will ask

you to step back and we are going to ask you to look at a more serious and bigger picture. we are going to ask you to measure the european union against a longer history and a bigger aim. before we can define failure in the -- in this motion, we have to know what we are talking about. and indeed the e.u.'s currency zone is certainly in trouble and it's sending out distress signals. i don't deny that. but the eurozone is not the whole european project. that project started over six decades ago when it was realized that the hole in europe could and should be, and would be bigger than the sum of its parties. that by pooling elements of our sovereignty and decisionmaking we can achieve things that would not be possible to achieve if we

remained a collection of relatively small, rather combative nation states. in doing that he we have put behind centuries of conflict in europe. not a small thing. and we have ended the division of europe east and west and successfully anchored all of the post soviet states and the most dictatorship states of spain, of greece, and portugal in a system of values and of irreversible democratic and human rights. no small achievement. we have also created actually the largest economic space of its kind in the world and all the ease of doing business and trading across the e.u. that goes with that. now, in creating this unique

model of supernationalism, we have succeeded in doing what has never been done before and has never been attempted in any other part of the world. and this system has become absolutely central to european life. our diplomacy, our security, and our policy coordination in so many different areas. and i just think you can argue with this achievement if they were actually being serious. presumably they agree that if the e.u. did not exist, european states would actually want to invent the game, something very like it. and even the euro itself, i don't think we can yet write it off as failed. the currency union is certainly flawed, true. it's clear now that two decades ago europe started to run economically before we could

talk politically. this is not, in my view, because we were overambitious, but because we were actually not ambitious enough. we weren't ambitious enough to create the political institutions and machinery needed to make economic and monetary union work. the question is, is this failure of the eurozone permanent? in my view the failure is one of design and execution, not concept and principle. you have heard tonight and you'll hear it again, the other side tell you that the whole thing is going to hell in a hand cart. but the argument i think is that there is actually a workable version of the single currency. the question is whether europe has the political will to implement this version?

so, yes, a serious stumble. yes, a serious flaw in design. but failure for the whole european project, for the whole of the european idea, i would argue not. a historical determineance over here, i don't quibble with niall's qualifications as a historian. it's very easy to be an historian talking about the past. looking through your rear view window, mirror, the entire time -- [applause] >> for a politician, i'm afraid and a minister, you have to be a little bit more practical and a little bit more serious. has europe failed? i would say it is just too soon to know. could europe fail? of course it could be, but must europe fail? absolutely not. thank you very much. [applause]

>> well-done, gentlemen, a very strong opening to the debate. i think you've flushed something out which is important which is how this awed yearns chooses to define the european experiment. is it the euro a larger civilizational project? that's going to be up to you to decide when you pick up your second ballot tend of tonight, and for those of you voting online right now. our next phase of this debate is to have these debaters engage each other directly. niall, you are the first to speak so i come to you. what have you heard from the opposing side here you just fundamentally disagree with, you think they got wrong from a to z, and then i'll have them rebut? >> as i predicted, they fell into the trap of attributing europe's peace to the european union, through the process of european integration. the he did it in a very gallonic way which played well for him

since 1968, but to be honest it worked for me in 1968 -- >> this is not -- 1968 -- you were not here in 1968. it's what i want to be. you do not have to tell me in which which year i have to talk. so you -- >> you can see why the process of european integration doesn't work very well. [applause] >> we are talking at cross-purposes. europe's peace since the 1940's has almost nothing to do with the process of european integration, which as i said, has been primarily economic. it is not the interconstitutions of the e.u. that made peace. it was nato. and the division of europe during the cold war. the only attempt to make european interconstitutions concerned with military affairs failed in 1954 because france

voted it down and the national assembly. so we mustant fall for this emotive non sequitur which is the one european language everybody used to speak. it's not the case. the issue is economic. and what i noticed was that neither danny nor peter addressed my point that in economic terms europe has failed to deliver. i have just come back from europe. maybe you live there but don't notice this, but there is a massive economic crisis unfolding on the continent because of the failed project. what are you going to say about that? >> i will tell you. i will tell you. >> you're next. let's go. >> will i tell you two things, first, one of the biggest achievement of europe, and you don't make peace only with nato, it's that the people came together. because if the people wouldn't have come together, then you have no border inside europe,

then you don't have peace. and this is one achievement. and you can't deny it. you can't deny it. you can't deny it. [applause] >> wait a minute. i was discussing with the president of your parpe because it was edwin schmidt who has made the biggest description of the reality of europe, and he is not a 1968er, he was one of the most -- prime minister or chancellor of germany. now i -- i am not finished. >> this is not the european partly, ok? >> to me this is not -- i didn't tell you -- you do what you want and i do what i want. you tell me you're not there, you're not there. >> your argument. >> let's start talking about the style of debate. >> on the economic failure. , when when it was the german

unification, it was jacques who made the plan to have german integration with money, with cash money. it was the european stayed together who made a bid to help the german. when poland came in, it was european money which had poland come out of the communist, and today the polish majority agreed on this. it was the same with the other countries. now, it is true that europe is also a success story of a lot of country. and you know what? why all the european country wanted to come in europe? and on the economy, then he was right in one point, we have to make a step forward. it's true, in a crisis like this, we must have a political

government of the economy and fiscal approach together. it's not we are in trouble. >> danny, eloquently said. let me come back to josef. follow up on what danny's saying, why is the united states of europe not a conceivable outcome of this crisis considering the cost of collapse and what would ensue? >> first of all, i think -- just want to say, if you are right you don't have to scream. [applause] >> second, the problem with the two of you is that you are -- if we have political will, if we have political union then we would overcome all problems. but that's just putting the cart before the horse. the problem is that we don't and we have to figure out why we don't. and i have tried to explain it in a few sentences. none of us and you, the brits,

least of all, by the way, wants to give national sovereignty. we don't want to be ruled by brussels. neither do you want to be ruled by brussels, or you. certainly none of us. and that's why we never get beyond when we get to the north face, that's why we can't keep going and that, danny, this is not the european parliament, this is not -- discuss. we try to talk to each other rationally. quietly. politely, respectfully t you see this is why we won't have europe. that's the problem. i rest my case. >> lord, you come in on this point of why countries will setaside some of these final key pieces of their sovereignty in turn for a larger europe that

comes out of this crisis in your view stronger and more united. >> they do have to satisfy your sovereignty, as you put it. i don't think they need to cease being nation states. they don't have to cease being britain or france or germany. the spanish don't have to stop being spanish and the belgiums will continue -- battle through as they do. but the point, frankly, is something slightly different. we are not asking people to give up their nation states. what we are observing is that european people have chosen to see their states and their governments pool their sovereignty and their decisionmaking in respect of certain key important areas of their lives. and the most important part of their lives is their economic

lives. how businesses are created. how jobs are created. how wealth is created in europe. by the way far from europe being broke, we do still represent 25% of global g.d.p., and we don't have anything like the debt mountain of the united states. are you saying that the united states, because they have debt, they are broke? of course they are not broke. the point about the single market, which is as i say the biggest economic, single economic space, a block of its kind, is two things in my view. one is in enabling businesses to trade across a single market of 500 million people. you enable businesses to grow in ways which they would not otherwise be able to do. if they were limited to their own countries and if they saved a myriad range of 27 different sets of regulatory laws and

policies, preventing them from trading freely across that single market. that's what you would have if you didn't have the single market. secondly, and i know this because i was the european trade commissioner, why is it that i am admitted in washington or beijing or moscow or delhi or brasilia, it's not because i'm british. it's not because i'm peter. charming, articulate. it's because i represent a europe, a market of 500 million people and those countries with their businesses and their job creation and their trade and their exports want to get access to our 500 million strong market. i tell you, if i was simply knocking on the door because i was luxembourg or simply knocking on the door because i

was bell yum, even if i was knocking on the door f. you don't mind me saying, if i was german, representing a relatively small market and a small population, i would not get a hearing. i would not have the clout. i would not be able to negotiate with the force that i was able to do as trade commissioner representing the entire european union. that's the reality. that's the reality. with the greatest due respect to you two, you asked me to engage with a serious argument. i have yet to hear a serious argument from either of these -- i am a practical man. >> give the other side a moment here. niall, you're up. >> nor are we in the house of commons. commons. >>